Loren E. Thompson, D/B/A Parkersburg Die and Tool Company v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
1Per curiam
No question of law is presented by this appeal. Though the controlling law is federal, rather than state as assumed below, 1 there is no apparent difference in the governing rules. The sole question is whether the facts require an inference that the United States waived ■ the defaults of its contractor with respect to the contract involved in count 1 of the complaint. That may have been a permissible inference, but the facts as found and recited in the opinion of the District Court 2 do not require it. The factual question was settled by the findings of the District Court which we must accept.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. County of AlleghenySupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- S. R. A., Inc. v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United States v. ThompsonDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia · 1958
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bertha Preston Darter and O.L. Darter v. Greenville Community Hotel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1962
- United States v. Idlewild Pharmacy, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1969
- United States v. Transamerica Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1973
- Venice Maid Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1980